Aaron Hernandez Trial (Odin Lloyd)

[RhaegarTharen]

I could be way off base here from a legal standpoint; and maybe the Jury have received instructions/information to the contrary (or maybe they have a different opinion) - but if I was on the Jury I'd look at Joint Venture in the following way.  
 
1) Was Odin Lloyd Murdered?  
2) Were Hernandez, Wallace, and Ortiz the only other "participants" at the crime.  
 
 
Assuming "YES" to the above, to me Joint Venture is intended to eliminate the chances that any (or all three) guilty parties "get off" because of a reasonable doubt that they weren't the trigger man and/or had no idea what was going down.  In other words, once the State has established BARD that Lloyd was murdered and that those three were involved in the crime, the next logical implication is that one of them HAS to be guilty of murdering OL.   Personally, once that happens, my feelings (again - could be legally incorrect) is that Joint Venture would "automatically bind" each of them as guilty unless they could somehow prove the above.  It sort of shifts the burden of proof IMO.  We KNOW one of those three is guilty (if we assume the State has established BARD that Lloyd was murdered by one of them) - now it's up to each individual defendant to show why HE is not a guilty party.  Otherwise isn't the risk that they each point a finger at somebody else, Mexican Stand-Off style, and hope that each possibly gets off the hook for the murder rap?  
 
I confess I'm not really sure how this works w/ multiple defendants being tried separately.  If Hernandez successfully convinces his Jury that one of the others flipped out and murdered Lloyd while they were hanging out, and Ortiz successfully convinces his Jury of the same, I'm guessing those results can't be used against Wallace at his trial, correct?  
 
 
Maybe I'm just as unrealistic as the posters who are waiting for the L&O smoking gun moment where AH breaks down on the stand and confesses,  but I have a hard time shaking the idea that if I were on a Jury, and I had been successfully convinced that the State met its burden of proof on Assumptions 1 & 2 above, that I wouldn't be looking at AH and thinking that he's guilty under JV, in the absence of a creditable story (with testimony?) from him and another defendant about how it was the third guy who killed Lloyd out of nowhere. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

I could be way off base here from a legal standpoint; and maybe the Jury have received instructions/information to the contrary (or maybe they have a different opinion) - but if I was on the Jury I'd look at Joint Venture in the following way.  
 
1) Was Odin Lloyd Murdered?  
2) Were Hernandez, Wallace, and Ortiz the only other "participants" at the crime.  
 
 
Assuming "YES" to the above, to me Joint Venture is intended to eliminate the chances that any (or all three) guilty parties "get off" because of a reasonable doubt that they weren't the trigger man and/or had no idea what was going down.  In other words, once the State has established BARD that Lloyd was murdered and that those three were involved in the crime, the next logical implication is that one of them HAS to be guilty of murdering OL.   Personally, once that happens, my feelings (again - could be legally incorrect) is that Joint Venture would "automatically bind" each of them as guilty unless they could somehow prove the above.  It sort of shifts the burden of proof IMO.  We KNOW one of those three is guilty (if we assume the State has established BARD that Lloyd was murdered by one of them) - now it's up to each individual defendant to show why HE is not a guilty party.  Otherwise isn't the risk that they each point a finger at somebody else, Mexican Stand-Off style, and hope that each possibly gets off the hook for the murder rap?  
 
I confess I'm not really sure how this works w/ multiple defendants being tried separately.  If Hernandez successfully convinces his Jury that one of the others flipped out and murdered Lloyd while they were hanging out, and Ortiz successfully convinces his Jury of the same, I'm guessing those results can't be used against Wallace at his trial, correct?  
 
 
Maybe I'm just as unrealistic as the posters who are waiting for the L&O smoking gun moment where AH breaks down on the stand and confesses,  but I have a hard time shaking the idea that if I were on a Jury, and I had been successfully convinced that the State met its burden of proof on Assumptions 1 & 2 above, that I wouldn't be looking at AH and thinking that he's guilty under JV, in the absence of a creditable story (with testimony?) from him and another defendant about how it was the third guy who killed Lloyd out of nowhere. 

 
This is pretty close.  There's always the danger when one starts talking about "the absence of a story from the defense" that you're starting to begin burden shifting - i.e., requiring the defense to prove something.  However, you can also look at "the absence of an alibi" as meaning "there's no reasonable doubt" as to AH's involvement.
 
It's easier to just view this as the state needing to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt.  That means they have a burden to put on positive evidence of guilt, period.  If the state can't produce enough evidence to erase logical doubts about guilt or innocence, then the stat has failed to meet their burden.  Also, the state's positive evidence can't be "dinged" or damaged or hurt, by any evidence the defense puts on.  
 
So, to really essentialize it:
1) was a crime committed and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (M1 or M2 of OL - I think yes).
2) was AH proven to be a joint venturer beyond a reasonable doubt?  (I think, up in the air.) 
 
***
You're right about the thwarting of potential defenses/co-defendant finger-pointing as being one of the reasons for JV/Accessory theory.   If AH had been alone in the car with OL, we'd already have a guilty verdict I suspect.   
 
Edit - and yes, the verdict of any one trial of co-defendants will not affect the other trails. 

 

[FelixMantilla]

We must be around or just past the 30 hour mark now.
 
http://www.wcvb.com/news/jurors-to-deliberate-for-6th-day-in-aaron-hernandez-trial/32355626

 

[snowmanny]

 
This is pretty close.  There's always the danger when one starts talking about "the absence of a story from the defense" that you're starting to begin burden shifting - i.e., requiring the defense to prove something.  However, you can also look at "the absence of an alibi" as meaning "there's no reasonable doubt" as to AH's involvement.
 
It's easier to just view this as the state needing to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt.  That means they have a burden to put on positive evidence of guilt, period.  If the state can't produce enough evidence to erase logical doubts about guilt or innocence, then the stat has failed to meet their burden.  Also, the state's positive evidence can't be "dinged" or damaged or hurt, by any evidence the defense puts on.  
 
So, to really essentialize it:
1) was a crime committed and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (M1 or M2 of OL - I think yes).
2) was AH proven to be a joint venturer beyond a reasonable doubt?  (I think, up in the air.) 
 
***
You're right about the thwarting of potential defenses/co-defendant finger-pointing as being one of the reasons for JV/Accessory theory.   If AH had been alone in the car with OL, we'd already have a guilty verdict I suspect.   
 
Edit - and yes, the verdict of any one trial of co-defendants will not affect the other trails. 

There is no "burden" on the defense, but in my experience on a jury we were well aware that one of the defendants had an opportunity to create reasonable doubt with evidence/testimony but did not avail themselves of this opportunity.  Leaving it up to the jury to come up with a scenario that doesn't fit the prosecution's narrative may not be legal evidence that you have nothing but it is sort of common sense evidence that you have nothing.

 

[dcmissle]

We must be around or just past the 30 hour mark now.
 
http://www.wcvb.com/news/jurors-to-deliberate-for-6th-day-in-aaron-hernandez-trial/32355626

And I'll keep saying it, there has been no note from the jury on anything substantive indicating distress, unless you count a request for a smoke break in that category. Nothing like, "what happens if we can't agree ...?"

 

[Rovin Romine]

There is no "burden" on the defense, but in my experience on a jury we were well aware that one of the defendants had an opportunity to create reasonable doubt with evidence/testimony but did not avail themselves of this opportunity.  Leaving it up to the jury to come up with a scenario that doesn't fit the prosecution's narrative may not be legal evidence that you have nothing but it is sort of common sense evidence that you have nothing.

There are things a good defense attorney can do to immunize a jury from that sort of thinking.  Edit - a fair number of things, actually, which I'm glossing over for the moment.  
 
Here, perhaps the defense should have owned up to AH's instant presence, floated the "he didn't know it would happen" theory, and committed the position that the state couldn't prove anything (bolstered by lack of motive as an emotional matter.)  As long as you get the jury to commit (via voir dire) to the "You may never know what happened - and if you have any unanswered questions, who do you hold that against? The State!" approach, you've got a fighting chance.
 
Edit - I'm not saying your jury "got it wrong."  If the state carries the day, it carries the day.  If the jury has only gross and tenuous speculation as to a theory of innocence (and, absent that, guilt), it's not the same as the state having a gaping hole in its case.  Good defense attorneys can make the first appear much more like the latter, but making a mountain of a molehill requires a coordinated drive toward that end.  
 
Sometimes there is a "magic bullet" that does not require the defendant to testify or put on evidence - often you get that from a detective's testimony or conflicts in the state's evidence.  One of my fav. trials (an odd favorite because I was stylistically very flat/off my game for that one and felt I had let my trial partner down) centered on a dated photo (mugshot) of the defendant having his head shaved on date X - and a month latter, a woman was robbed at gunpoint by a man in jaw length dreadlocks.  Another case that the state never should have taken to trial.  They ended up arguing that he must have been wearing a wig.  (Seriously.)  There were other problems, but that's a classic "the defendant didn't do it/was elsewhere" reasonable doubt argument which does not depend on the defendant testifying.  
 

And I'll keep saying it, there has been no note from the jury on anything substantive indicating distress, unless you count a request for a smoke break in that category. Nothing like, "what happens if we can't agree ...?"

 
I'll agree with you on this.  
 
[lunchtime speculation]  However, it's been 30 hours and several full days.  I'm curious as hell to know what's going on in there.  I'm pretty comfortable in saying (80% chance?) that there's a fundamental split on a significant issue.  I would think if a lone holdout (or a block) adopted a "NG/not budging" stance on the major charges, we'd have seen a note by now - either regarding deadlocks, or the instructions for those more serious crimes.   So I'm guessing (40% chance?) that we have a split over the extent of guilt for the major charges - IM/M2/M1.  As long as everyone is in agreement there was an unlawful killing and AH is somehow to some extent responsible, there's a powerful incentive to keep deliberating. [/lunchtime speculation]   
 
This jury really deserves our commendation - insofar as they're clearly taking the case seriously and would appear to be diligent in weighing the facts and applying those facts to the law/instructions.  You can't say that there's a rush to verdict here.  

 

[Kull]

So I'm guessing (40% chance?) that we have a split over the extent of guilt for the major charges - IM/M2/M1.  As long as everyone is in agreement there was an unlawful killing and AH is somehow to some extent responsible, there's a powerful incentive to keep deliberating. [/lunchtime speculation]   
 
This jury really deserves our commendation - insofar as they're clearly taking the case seriously and would appear to be diligent in weighing the facts and applying those facts to the law/instructions.  You can't say that there's a rush to verdict here.  

 
Agreed on both of the above, although I think the odds are much higher that it's down to a determination between M1 and M2.
 
 
Although personally I think the chances of a hung jury are low, I'm curious about the defense admission that Hernandez was present at the killings. Going in to this trial, that was an area the prosecution had to work on - proving that he was in fact at the crime scene. So isn't that now a settled issue for a re-trial? If so, it's one area where the prosecution has less to worry about, and in fact could focus more attention on proving the JV nature of the crime.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
Agreed on both of the above, although I think the odds are much higher that it's down to a determination between M1 and M2.
 
Although personally I think the chances of a hung jury are low, I'm curious about the defense admission that Hernandez was present at the killings. Going in to this trial, that was an area the prosecution had to work on - proving that he was in fact at the crime scene. So isn't that now a settled issue for a re-trial? If so, it's one area where the prosecution has less to worry about, and in fact could focus more attention on proving the JV nature of the crime.

 
Nope.  A redo is a redo - all options are on the table, all strategies can be redone.  The defense can adopt any position(s) it wishes.  The state can also alter its theories and (depending on MA law) perhaps even charge AH with new, more easily proven offenses.
 
What *can't* be altered is the testimony of the individual witnesses - in the sense that they've already testified under oath, and therefore they can be impeached during trial #2 with their testimony from this trial.  So the facts are sort of "locked in" - but the state still has to put all of the witnesses on the stand to put (that testimony/those facts) in front of jury #2.  The state can put on completely new witnesses in trial #2.  The state can put on completely new evidence.  The state can also swap out some types of witnesses - say, get a different medical examiner to review the findings of the first and testify.  (No real need to do that - just an example.) The most dramatic changes for the prosecution would be finding the murder weapon or having someone flip - say Wallace.  The defense can always hope a key witness dies.  
 
Changes will be made to both sides given the experiences in trial #1.  In particular, any 'surprise' arguments made in close will be attacked during trial #2.  For example, the state theorized that he driver must be the shooter based on the wounds/stippling/angles, etc. - so the defense ought to call a crime scene/ballistics expert to put that theory to rest, or, at least, aggressively cross the MA detectives to show that the shooter could have been anywhere in the car (if such is possible, given the facts).  On the flip side, the defense tried to make some hay with the idea that AH wasn't carrying a glock .45 in the various videos.  The defense should double down on that with an expert, and the state should either get a new expert or try to firm up the one they have.  
 
Edit: PS  Because the attorneys' arguments about the import (or inferences drawn from) the facts are not "evidence," they cannot be brought up in trial #2.  If AH's attorney in closing admitted that AH killed OL, it's not coming in at the second trial - unless the attorney chooses to do it again.  Or he could claim AH was in Calcutta.  

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Since this thread serves as a bit of a rolling civics lesson, I looked up whether Massachusetts permits use of a "dynamite" or "Allen" charge when jurors state that they are deadlocked.  
 
Basically, the question is whether or not to have a specific instruction to use when jurors say they are deadlocked to make them go back at it, or to simply declare the case a mistrial.  Use of the dynamite charge is constitutional in a criminal case (based on a case named "Allen," hence the name; the Allen case is very old, but I actually think it might have been a Massachusetts case).
 
Many consider the use of a dynamite charge to be coercive.  RR can tell us better, but since holdouts are more common based on a lone or small number of holdouts for acquittal, the defense typically objects.  Most states that allow a dynamite charge adhere pretty closely to the same language, which has been endorsed by the American Bar Association.  The charge is pretty balanced towards both acquittal and conviction, and makes clear that each juror must abide by their own convictions, but the reality is that in the lone holdout situation, it gives the other 11 considerable leverage and it's hard to imagine that in a lone hold out situation, the holdout doesn't hear the judge as speaking directly to him or her.  I don't know the statistics, but there are certainly a decent number of cases where the instruction is read, and a unanimous verdict is announced a very short time later -- which is why they are used.  The most coercive parts of the instruction are (1) statements that "absolute certainty" is not necessary, (2) there is no reason to expect that any other jury will be more suited than you to decide this matter, and (3) jurors for acquittal should consider whether their doubt is a reasonable one and should take into account that it has not convinced other jurors who are presumably equally conscientious and who took an oath.  Although there is also language telling jurors for conviction that if others disagree that may signal reasonable doubt, it is the third part that leads many to believe that the instruction is coercive. 
 
Anyway, unlike about half the states, Massachusetts does permit the Allen charge.  It actually has two versions -- one that is considerably more tame than the standard dynamite charge.  The judge is supposed to first give the tame version if she believes that the jury's announcement that it cannot reach a verdict is premature and not based on a due consideration of the evidence.  I would think we're past that point here.  Typically, if the jury states unequivocally twice that it cannot reach a verdict (usually once before and once after an Allen charge), that's it, they cannot be made to go back to deliberate again unless they somehow indicate that want to keep trying.  If, however, the jury's statement that it cannot reach a verdict is equivocal in any way (for example, if it's accompanied by a question about the evidence or some other statement), then they can be recharged and sent back to deliberate without it counting toward the two.  Jurisdictions differ in how strongly judges are encouraged to give the Allen charge -- in some they have considerable discretion not to.  (Actually, in reality, they always have "discretion" not to, because if the judge refuses to give it, she declares a mistrial and there's really nothing that a court of appeals could do to say the charge should have been given.) Massachusetts includes the charge in their model instructions, if what I'm looking at is up to date, and it appears that it's generally deemed to be appropriate to give, so we may very well see it in this case.  Here's the text -- references to "six" should be "twelve" here. http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/courts-and-judges/courts/district-court/jury-instructions-criminal/2460-when-jurors-cannot-agree.pdf 

 

[jcd0805]

I'm stunned they haven't found him guilty yet, absolutely stunned. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

No decision today.  We're at 34 hours.  Jury returns tomorrow for day 7 of deliberations.  
 
It's getting more and more likely there's a split.   

 

[Rovin Romine]

Since this thread serves as a bit of a rolling civics lesson, I looked up whether Massachusetts permits use of a "dynamite" or "Allen" charge when jurors state that they are deadlocked.  
 
(snip)
 
Many consider the use of a dynamite charge to be coercive.  RR can tell us better, but since holdouts are more common based on a lone or small number of holdouts for acquittal, the defense typically objects.  
 
(snip)

Excellent overview.  Yes, the defense normally objects, but if the Allen charge (what I've been calling the "try harder jury instruction") is allowed, it's something of a pro forma objection.  The appellate court has already decided the issue of the charge's legality - so there's likely no relief there.   As far as immediate relief, courts generally prefer verdicts over mistrials, so the charge is usually given. 
 
The Allen charge is coercive in the sense that if there is a lone holdout, the jury, emboldened by the language of the charge, might collectively bring pressure to bear on that holdout, so long as the language of the charge has additional information about the importance or cost of the trial. 

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

I live in Rhode Island which is the nation's capital for "People Making Loud Uniformed Decisions with 100% Conviction in the Most AHole-ish Way Possible".
 
I will never forgive this jury if they don't find him guilty because of all of the loud mouth, Law and Order watching idiots that I had to listen to proclaim that no murder weapon meant there was zero percent chance of conviction. 

 

[PeaceSignMoose]

I live in Rhode Island which is the nation's capital for "People Making Loud Uniformed Decisions with 100% Conviction in the Most AHole-ish Way Possible".
 
I will never forgive this jury if they don't find him guilty because of all of the loud mouth, Law and Order watching idiots that I had to listen to proclaim that no murder weapon meant there was zero percent chance of conviction. 

 
Unfortunately, this is a concern I have too.  Literally everyone I've talked to at the gym and at work ("Typical Juror") thinks Hernandez not only WILL, but SHOULD walk because they didn't have the murder weapon or bone chilling, spit coffee out of your mouth moment in the trial.  And I live in Bristol County.

 

[Titoschew]

No decision today.  We're at 34 hours.  Jury returns tomorrow for day 7 of deliberations.  
 
It's getting more and more likely there's a split.   

 
I've always wondered what the dynamic is for compromise on a jury.  Both that I was on were pretty open and shut.  Like do they compromise on second degree for the hold outs that aren't sure of his guilt?  Fascinating.
 

 
Unfortunately, this is a concern I have too.  Literally everyone I've talked to at the gym and at work ("Typical Juror") thinks Hernandez not only WILL, but SHOULD walk because they didn't have the murder weapon or bone chilling, spit coffee out of your mouth moment in the trial.  And I live in Bristol County.

 
Me too.  I have a lunch bet for guilty the murder and the girl who took the opposing view cited her stance for the reasons you mentioned.  

 

[Tim Salmon]

I wonder how many jurors understood going into the trial that "circumstantial" is not a dirty word for describing evidence. I hope any folks who are confused pay close attention to the judge's instructions explaining that point.

I also hope they can wrap their heads around the fact that the standard for conviction is not "personally pulled the trigger" beyond a reasonable doubt.

At this point, I think the answer to my question is "fewer than twelve."

 

[bosoxsue]

 
Unfortunately, this is a concern I have too.  Literally everyone I've talked to at the gym and at work ("Typical Juror") thinks Hernandez not only WILL, but SHOULD walk because they didn't have the murder weapon or bone chilling, spit coffee out of your mouth moment in the trial.  And I live in Bristol County.

 
This is interesting, as if "Law & Order" has taught people anything, it is to use their imagination about what Shayanna was doing with that box in the middle of the night (and what was really in the box). What I'm saying is I think the much-decried "L&O" effect would actually help the prosecution here.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I have a lunch bet for guilty the murder and the girl who took the opposing view cited her stance for the reasons you mentioned.  

 
Is she hot?

 

[PeaceSignMoose]

 
Is she hot?

 
It's Bristol County.
 
So, no.

 

[hittery]

It's a long time, but a deadlock is not a sure thing. There were 439 exhibits. That's a lot. They are deciding the fate of a young man on a highly publicized trial. I suspect they are leaning heavily toward guilty, but no one wants to do this lightly. I would not be too concerned if I was a prosecutor.

 

[dcmissle]

So skimming around, I find a Globe article reporting that the jury sent out a question about the gun and ammo charges, but nothing regarding homicide. Interesting.

 

[Titoschew]

 
It's Bristol County.
 
So, no.

Like a 6 maybe? I would speculate D's though.

 

[jcd0805]

This is interesting, as if "Law & Order" has taught people anything, it is to use their imagination about what Shayanna was doing with that box in the middle of the night (and what was really in the box). What I'm saying is I think the much-decried "L&O" effect would actually help the prosecution here.

I don't think so, those shows all had some type of "ah-ha!" moment, I think without that jurors don't feel like they can convict, sadly.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
Is she hot?

It definitely had a "Dustin Hoffman was in Star Wars" kind of smell to it, didn't it?

 

[Joshv02]

So skimming around, I find a Globe article reporting that the jury sent out a question about the gun and ammo charges, but nothing regarding homicide. Interesting.

That was on the first full day.

 

[dcmissle]

That was on the first full day.

Thanks. And no questions on substance since?

 

[Rovin Romine]

Thanks. And no questions on substance since?

 
 
Nope.  If memory serves, they were on the nature of constructive possession.  Skim through the thread.  
 
I don't believe there've been any other questions or any other communications from the jury. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

https://twitter.com/BfragaHN/status/588317055105036289
 
Sounds like this could be getting hellish for the alternate jurors.  I read a lot, but that's a lot of enforced downtime.  I wonder if they can use phones/laptops while they're stuck in their little purgatory.  

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

On my jury duty in NYC, the juror waiting room had excellent wifi and even a back room with tables where you could set up shop with a laptop if you liked.
 
But I imagine they're not in the jury pool room, they're in some sort of segregated place - hopefully they have wifi and a table to sit at.

 

[dcmissle]

https://twitter.com/BfragaHN/status/588317055105036289

https://twitter.com/BfragaHN/status/588317055105036289

link to tweet
 
Sounds like this could be getting hellish for the alternate jurors.  I read a lot, but that's a lot of enforced downtime.  I wonder if they can use phones/laptops while they're stuck in their little purgatory.  

Yup. Juries can bond. It is not beyond reason that the people in the room deliberating are having fun.

But this waiting around for a call that may never come must be hell. And I suspect they have been instructed not to discuss the case, so there is not even a mock deliberation they can participate in if they do what they are told.

 

[jsinger121]

Lisa Kraus Edwards ‏@LAKEdwards  34s35 seconds ago
VERDICT #AaronHernandez

 

[RedOctober3829]

Michele Steele ‏@ESPNMichele  47s47 seconds ago
Breaking: we have a VERDICT due to be announced in next 10-15 minutes #HernandezTrial

 

[RedOctober3829]

Lisa Kraus Edwards ‏@LAKEdwards  26s27 seconds ago
Jury has reached unanimous decisions on the three charges: murder (1st or 2nd degree), possession of .22 ammo, possession of .45 Glock

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I live in Rhode Island which is the nation's capital for "People Making Loud Uniformed Decisions with 100% Conviction in the Most AHole-ish Way Possible".
 
I will never forgive this jury if they don't find him guilty because of all of the loud mouth, Law and Order watching idiots that I had to listen to proclaim that no murder weapon meant there was zero percent chance of conviction. 

....

 

[RedOctober3829]

Will be shown live here.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/show/cbs-boston-live-video/

 

[bosoxsue]

And here:
 
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/29/live-video-aaron-hernandez-court/8lnbdsG3EjiLjUUIiay5IJ/story.html

 

[jsinger121]

Here we go 

 

[Ed Hillel]

He's done.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Hung jury was a definite possibility, but I don't see any way it's Not Guilty.

 

[uncannymanny]

All this time following this thread and I'm going to hit the GCT tunnel and lose service right when the verdict is read lol

 

[jsinger121]

1st degree murder guilty

 

[Corsi]

Ben Volin ‏@BenVolin  11s11 seconds ago
Aaron Hernandez found GUILTY on charge of first degree murder

 

[Ed Hillel]

Good. Fuck him.

 

[Corsi]

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw  3s3 seconds ago
Breaking: Aaron Hernandez is found guilty in the First Degree due to extreme atrocity and cruelty. He will go to prison for life, no parole.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Was the likely verdict, but still chilling to hear.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Almost showing a hint of emotion, but he quickly went back to being the psychopath he is.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

I live in Rhode Island which is the nation's capital for "People Making Loud Uniformed Decisions with 100% Conviction in the Most AHole-ish Way Possible".
 
I will never forgive this jury if they don't find him guilty because of all of the loud mouth, Law and Order watching idiots that I had to listen to proclaim that no murder weapon meant there was zero percent chance of conviction. 

 
Common Sense: 1
Idiots: 0
 
Victory!

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Justice served, even for the rich and famous for once

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Good. Fuck him.

 
Yep. Got what he deserved. 
 
What a fucking idiot he is.

 

[jsinger121]

The south end murder trial will be a huge layup for 2 more murder convictions.